(Original post by prospectiveoxonian)
Even I am bent more towards london + king's is much older and better-known

Anyone with any education behind them will know of Warwick and it's quality. King's is older but who cares? Aberdeen is one of the oldest universities in the UK, yet isn't even top 30.

OP go for Warwick. King's isn't renowned for anything Politics related, LSE/UCL/SOAS are the big hitters in London for Politics related courses. The international politics course at King's is also fairly new. Warwick is very strong for the social sciences, which is the basis of your degree.

(Original post by Deep456)
Better known to whom? The average Joe on the street?

Warwick PPE is a more flexible course, King's is in a better location, Warwick is the better university.

What do you want? London experience or a better education?

I actually want both. And it's not that I won't be getting that at King's. But can you confirm if Warwick PPE is a Band 1 or Band 2 (17000+ pounds)course? Because that will significantly increase costs for me (overseas) and might end up being more expensive than London

(Original post by prospectiveoxonian)
I actually want both. And it's not that I won't be getting that at King's. But can you confirm if Warwick PPE is a Band 1 or Band 2 (17000+ pounds)course? Because that will significantly increase costs for me (overseas) and might end up being more expensive than London

The offer was for Liberal Arts - as it was my first choice, I withdrew all my other applications (including another one at Kings for History). I hadn't heard back from anything else though at the time.

Deep, I understand you're speaking from a biased point of view as you've just firmed your Warwick offer but the point is you're a home student. Back here in my country (India), Warwick is ill-reputed as I know people who've got on-the-spot offers at educational fairs. Moreover, it is infamous for hosting many Indian students and therefore, it's like studying in India (i have many friends studying there) so what's the point of shelling out 30,000 every year if there is no significant cultural exchange?

Transferred to KCL actually. I started out at Edinburgh, which I love, but it was too late to change degree here.

One thing to consider though is that, Deep's opinion aside, the fact is that King's is better known internationally (speaking as someone who has lived practically everywhere, often in the company of academics and the like).

The ranking/tables obsession in TSR is not really indicative of real trends in a lot of cases - this is one of them.

(Original post by ScholarsInk)
Transferred to KCL actually. I started out at Edinburgh, which I love, but it was too late to change degree here.

One thing to consider though is that, Deep's opinion aside, the fact is that King's is better known internationally (speaking as someone who has lived practically everywhere, often in the company of academics and the like).

The ranking/tables obsession in TSR is not really indicative of real trends in a lot of cases - this is one of them.

I see what you're saying, but bar North America I don't know if your point stands up.

In Hong Kong, Singapore and SE Asia in general, Warwick is more known in my experience.

This isn't just indicative of TSR, by large Warwick is a 'better'(for want of a better word) university than King's . Not many universities are as visited or as targeted as Warwick is. I've seen firms which visit a select few UK universities incld Warwick/UCL/Bristol/Durham, but not King's.

This isn't just indicative of TSR, by large Warwick is a 'better'(for want of a better word) university than King's . Not many universities are as visited or as targeted as Warwick is. I've seen firms which visit a select few UK universities incld Warwick/UCL/Bristol/Durham, but not King's.

I disagree again. There are many criteria by which King's easily exceeds the likes of Warwick. It's not a question of Warwick being bad, but more an issue of it being quite difficult to quantify differences in subjects like politics.

And as for firms, there are just as many that just look to Oxbridge, UCL, KCL and LSE. The visiting issue is as much a logistics one as anything else. It doesn't necessarily reflect prospects.

(Original post by ScholarsInk)
King's has a stronger standing in the Indian subcontinent, where the OP is from. The same can be said for much of Africa and parts of SE Asia, like Malaysia.

I disagree again. There are many criteria by which King's easily exceeds the likes of Warwick. It's not a question of Warwick being bad, but more an issue of it being quite difficult to quantify differences in subjects like politics.

And as for firms, there are just as many that just look to Oxbridge, UCL, KCL and LSE. The visiting issue is as much a logistics one as anything else. It doesn't necessarily reflect prospects.

I know you'd like to support your university and all but it's reasonable to say Warwick is the more prestigious university.

(Original post by ScholarsInk)
King's has a stronger standing in the Indian subcontinent, where the OP is from. The same can be said for much of Africa and parts of SE Asia, like Malaysia.

You seem to be making a sizeable amount of generalisations, but fair enough. I've been to Africa numerous times, and know people within the business sector and King's is merely more popular than Warwick. The only issue that Warwick faces is a lack of awareness and familarity, this shouldn't be confused with reputation. King's is in London, the most famous city in the UK, so it's no suprise that its more globally recognised.

I disagree again. There are many criteria by which King's easily exceeds the likes of Warwick. It's not a question of Warwick being bad, but more an issue of it being quite difficult to quantify differences in subjects like politics.

Care to source this? The only thing I can think of is the QS global ranking where King's is ranked within the top 30, and this table isn't fullproof. Ranking aren't a great indicator, but the only thing I can really see King's being superior to Warwick is historical prestige.

And as for firms, there are just as many that just look to Oxbridge, UCL, KCL and LSE. The visiting issue is as much a logistics one as anything else. It doesn't necessarily reflect prospects.

I would like you to name ANY firm that shares that school of thought. It'd either be Oxbridge and LSE/ Oxbridge UCL Imperial or just any 'top tier UK university' King's is simply a notch below UCL, LSE and Imperial from what I can see. I can't help but feel like you're biased. King's reputation in the UK is sketchy. Ask 10 people to name their top 10 UK universities and 50% give or take will name King's. I'm curious as to how logistics come into play? King's is around 20 minutes away from UCL and LSE, firms could easily invite King's students to attend the presentations or just visit King's after.

(Original post by ScholarsInk)
King's has a stronger standing in the Indian subcontinent, where the OP is from. The same can be said for much of Africa and parts of SE Asia, like Malaysia.

I disagree again. There are many criteria by which King's easily exceeds the likes of Warwick. It's not a question of Warwick being bad, but more an issue of it being quite difficult to quantify differences in subjects like politics.

And as for firms, there are just as many that just look to Oxbridge, UCL, KCL and LSE. The visiting issue is as much a logistics one as anything else. It doesn't necessarily reflect prospects.

And which firms only look at those without Warwick?

For IB, for example, Warwick >>>>>>> Kings.

I haven't heard of firms favouring Kings students more than Warwick's.

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
You seem to be making a sizeable amount of generalisations, but fair enough. I've been to Africa numerous times, and know people within the business sector and King's is merely more popular than Warwick. The only issue that Warwick faces is a lack of awareness and familarity, this shouldn't be confused with reputation. King's is in London, the most famous city in the UK, so it's no suprise that its more globally recognised.

We might be arguing from different points. I am using 'reputation' as synonymous with 'recognition'.

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Care to source this? The only thing I can think of is the QS global ranking where King's is ranked within the top 30, and this table isn't fullproof. Ranking aren't a great indicator, but the only thing I can really see King's being superior to Warwick is historical prestige.

Rankings are a load of rubbish. Hong Kong University is not better than Penn, UCL is not at Yale's level.

The historical factor does make a huge difference in the Commonwealth. Because of it, especially in India, the older British universities have much much stronger old boys' networks.

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
I would like you to name ANY firm that shares that school of thought. It'd either be Oxbridge and LSE/ Oxbridge UCL Imperial or just any 'top tier UK university' King's is simply a notch below UCL, LSE and Imperial from what I can see. I can't help but feel like you're biased. King's reputation in the UK is sketchy. Ask 10 people to name their top 10 UK universities and 50% give or take will name King's. I'm curious as to how logistics come into play? King's is around 20 minutes away from UCL and LSE, firms could easily invite King's students to attend the presentations or just visit King's after.

The inviting King's students is precisely what I mean vis-a-vis logistics, and it certainly does happen.

I could understand the bias accusation if I was a King's student but I am not. I consciously applied to King's, all factors considered and with much consultation with people in the know.